Human Rights Protocol Considerations Research Group N. ten Oever
Internet-Draft University of Amsterdam
Intended status: Informational May 17, 2019
Expires: November 18, 2019
Notes on networking standards and politics
draft-irtf-hrpc-political-03
Abstract
The IETF cannot ordain what standards or protocols are to be used on
networks, but the standards development process in the IETF does have
an impact on society through its normative standards setting process.
Among other things, the IETF's work affects what is perceived as
technologically possible and useful where networking technologies are
being deployed, and its standards reflect what is considered by the
technical community to be feasible and good practice. Whereas there
might not be agreement among the Internet protocol community on the
specific political nature of the technological development process
and its outputs, it is undisputed that standards and protocols are
both products of a political process, and they can also be used for
political means.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on November 18, 2019.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
ten Oever Expires November 18, 2019 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft politix May 2019
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Vocabulary Used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Research Question . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Technology and Politics: a review of literature and community
positions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1. Technology is value neutral . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.2. Some protocols are political sometimes . . . . . . . . . 5
4.3. All protocols are political sometimes . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.4. The network has its own logic and values . . . . . . . . 5
4.5. Protocols are inherently political . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. IETF: Protocols as Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.1. Competition and collaboration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.2. How voluntary are open standards? . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
10. Research Group Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
11.1. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
11.2. URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1. Introduction
"Science and technology lie at the heart of social asymmetry.
Thus technology both creates systems which close off other
options and generate novel, unpredictable and indeed
previously unthinkable, option. The game of technology is
never finished, and its ramifications are endless."
- Michel Callon
"The Internet isn't value-neutral, and neither is the IETF."
-{{RFC3935}}
ten Oever Expires November 18, 2019 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft politix May 2019
The design of the Internet through protocols and standards is a
technical issue with great political and economic impacts [RFC0613].
The early Internet community already realized that it needed to make
decisions on political issues such as intellectual property;
internationalization [BramanI]; diversity; access [RFC0101]; privacy
and security [RFC0049]; and the military [RFC0164] [RFC0316],
governmental [RFC0144] [RFC0286] [RFC0313] [RFC0542] [RFC0549] and
non-governmental [RFC0196] uses of the network. This has been
clearly pointed out by Braman [BramanII].
Recently there has been increased discussion in the IRTF and IETF on
the relation between Internet protocols and human rights [RFC8280],
which spurred discussion of the value neutrality and political nature
of standards. The network infrastructure is on the one hand
designed, described, developed, standardized and implemented by the
Internet community, while on the other hand the Internet community
and Internet users are also shaped by the affordances of the
technology. Companies, citizens, governments, standards development
bodies, public opinion and public interest groups all play a part in
these discussions. In this document we aim to outline different
views on the relation between standards and politics, and seek to
answer the question of whether standards are political, and if so,
how.
2. Vocabulary Used
Politics (from Greek: Politika: Politika, definition "affairs of the
commons") is the process of making decisions applying to all
members of a diverse group with conflicting interests. More
narrowly, it refers to achieving and exercising positions of
governance or organized control over a community. Furthermore,
politics is the study or practice of the distribution of power and
resources within a given community as well as the
interrelationship(s) between communities. (adapted from
[HagueHarrop])
Affordances The possibilities that are provided to an actor through
the ordering of an environment by a technology. This means that a
technology does not determine what is possible, but that it that
invites specific kinds of behavior, and in that process shapes it.
3. Research Question
Are protocols political?
ten Oever Expires November 18, 2019 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft politix May 2019
4. Technology and Politics: a review of literature and community
positions
In 1993 the Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility stated
that 'the Internet should meet public interest objectives'.
Similarly, [RFC3935] states that 'The Internet isn't value-neutral,
and neither is the IETF.'. Ethics and the Internet was already a
topic of an RFC by the IAB in 1989 [RFC1097]. Nonetheless there has
been a recent uptick in discussions within the IETF and IRTF about
the impact of Internet protocols on human rights [RFC8280], and more
generally in public debate about the impact of technology on society.
This document aims to provide an overview of the spectrum of
different positions that have been observed in the IETF and IRTF
community, and have been observed during interviews, mailinglist
exchanges, and during research group sessions. These positions were
observed during participatory observation, through 39 interviews with
members of the community, the Human Rights Protocol Considerations
Research Group mailing list, and during and after the Technical
Plenary on Protocols and Human Rights during IETF98.
Without judging them on their internal or external consistency they
are represented here. Where possible we also sought to engage with
the academic literature on this topic.
4.1. Technology is value neutral
This position starts from the premise that the technical and
political are differentiated fields and that technology is 'value
free'. This is also put more explicitly by Carey: "electronics is
neither the arrival of apocalypse nor the dispensation of grace.
Technology is technology; it is a means for communication and
transportation over space, and nothing more." [Carey]. In this view
protocols only become political when it is actually being used by
humans. So the technology itself is not political, the use of the
technology is. This view sees technology as instrument;
"technologies are 'tools' standing ready to serve the purposes of
their users. Technology is deemed 'neutral,' without valuative
content of its own.'" [Feenberg]. Feenberg continues: "technology is
not inherently good or bad, and can be used to whatever political or
social ends desired by the person or institution in control.
Technology is a 'rational entity' and universally applicable. One
may make exceptions on moral grounds, but one must also understand
that the "price for the achievement of environmental, ethical, or
religious goals...is reduced efficiency." [Feenberg].
ten Oever Expires November 18, 2019 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft politix May 2019
4.2. Some protocols are political sometimes
This stance is a pragmatic approach to the problem. It states that
some protocols under certain conditions can themselves have a
political dimension. This is different from the claim that a
protocol might sometimes be used in a political way; that view is
consistent with the idea of the technology being neutral (for the
human action using the technology is where the politics lies).
Instead, this position requires that each protocol and use be
evaluated for its political dimension, in order to understand the
extent to which it is political.
4.3. All protocols are political sometimes
While not an absolutist standpoint it recognizes that all design
decisions are subject to the law of unintended consequences. The
system consisting of the Internet and its users is vastly too complex
to be predictable; it is chaotic in nature; its emergent properties
cannot be predicted. This concept strongly hinges on the general
purpose aspect of information technology and its malleability.
Whereas not all (potential) behaviours, affordances and impacts of
protocols can possible be predicted, one could at least consider the
impact of proposed implementations.
4.4. The network has its own logic and values
While humans create technologies, this does not mean that they are
forever under human control. A technology, once created, has its own
logic that is independent of the human actors that either create or
use the technology.
From this perspective, technologies can shape the world. As Martin
Heidegger says, "The hydroelectric plant is not built into the Rhine
River as was the old wooden bridge that joined bank with bank for
hundreds of years. Rather the river is dammed up into the power
plant. What the river is now, namely, a water power supplier,
derives from out of the essence of the power station." [Heidegger]
(p 16) The dam in the river changes the world in a way the bridge
does not, because the dam alters the nature of the river.
In the same way - in another and more recent example - the very
existence of automobiles imposes physical forms on the world
different from those that come from the electric tram or the horse-
cart. The logic of the automobile means speed and the rapid covering
of distance, which encourages suburban development and a tendency
toward conurbation. But even if that did not happen, widespread
automobile use requires paved roads, and parking lots and structures.
ten Oever Expires November 18, 2019 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft politix May 2019
These are pressures that come from the automotive technology itself,
and would not arise without that technology.
In much same way, then, networking technology, such as protocols,
creates its own demands. One of the most important conditions for a
protocol's success is its incremental deployability [RFC5218]. This
means that the network already contains constraints on what can be
deployed into it. In this sense the network creates its own paths,
but also has its own objective. According to this view the goal of
the network is interconnection and connectivity; more connectivity is
good for the network. Proponents of this positions also often
describe the Internet as an organism with its own unique ecosystem.
In this position it is not necessarily clear where the 'social' ends
and the 'technical' begins, and it could be argued that the
distinction itself is a social construction [BijkerLaw] or that a
real-life distinction between the two is hard to make [Bloor].
4.5. Protocols are inherently political
This position argues the opposite of 'technological neutrality'.
This position is illustrated by Postman when he writes: "the uses
made of technology are largely determined by the structure of the
technology itself" [Postman]. He states that the medium itself
"contains an ideological bias". He continues to argue that
technology is non-neutral:
(1) because of the symbolic forms in which information is encoded,
different media have different intellectual and emotional biases;
(2) because of the accessibility and speed of their information,
different media have different political biases;
(3) because of their physical form, different media have different
sensory biases;
(4) because of the conditions in which we attend to them, different
media have different social biases;
(5) because of their technical and economic structure, different
media have different content biases.
Recent scholars of Internet infrastructure and governance have also
pointed out that Internet processes and standards have become part
and parcel of political processes and public policies. Several
concrete examples are found within this approach, for instance, the
IANA transition or global innovation policy [DeNardis]. The Raven
process in which the IETF refused to standardize wiretapping - which
ten Oever Expires November 18, 2019 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft politix May 2019
resulted in [RFC2804] - was an instance where an international
governance body took a position that was largely political, although
driven by a technical argument. The process that led to [RFC6973] is
similar: the Snowden disclosures, which occured in the political
space, engendered the IETF to act. This is summarized in [Abbate]
who says: "protocols are politics by other means," emphasizing the
interests that are at play in the process of designing standards.
This position further holds that protocols can never be understood
without their contextual embeddedness: protocols do not exist solely
by themselves but always are to be understood in a more complex
context - the stack, hardware, or nation-state interests and their
impact on civil rights. Finally, this view is that protocols are
political because they influence the socio-technical workings of
reality and society. The latter observation leads Winner to conclude
that the reality of technological progress has too often been a
scenario where innovation has dictated change for society. Those who
had the power to introduce a new technology also had the power to
create a consumer class to use the technology "with new practices,
relationships, and identities supplanting the old, -- and those who
had the wherewithal to implement new technologies often molded
society to match the needs of emerging technologies and
organizations." [Winner].
5. IETF: Protocols as Standards
In the previous section we gave an overview of the different existing
positions of the impact of Internet protocols in the Internet
protocol community. In the following section we will review the
standards setting process and its consequences for the politics of
protocols, through the lens of existing literature on standards
setting.
Standards enabling interoperating networks, what we think of today as
the Internet, were created as open, formal and voluntary standards.
A platform for Internet standardization, the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), was created in 1986 to enable the continuation of
such standardization work. The IETF has sought to make the standards
process transparent (by ensuring everyone can access standards,
mailing-lists and meetings), predictable (by having clear procedures
and reviews) and of high quality (by having draft documents reviewed
by experts from its own community). This is all aimed at increasing
the accountability of the process and the quality of the standard.
The IETF implements what has been referred to as an "informal ex ante
disclosure policy" for patents [Contreras], which includes the
possibility for participants to disclose the existence of a patent
relevant for the standard, royalty-terms which would apply to the
ten Oever Expires November 18, 2019 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft politix May 2019
implementers of that standard should it enter into effect, as well as
other licensing terms that may be interesting for implementers to
know. The community ethos in the IETF seems to lead to 100% royalty-
free disclosures of prior patents which is a record number, even
among other comparable standard organizations [Contreras]. In the
following paragraph we will describe inherent tensions in the
standards process.
5.1. Competition and collaboration
Standards exist for nearly everything: processes, technologies,
safety, hiring, elections, and training. Standards provide blue-
prints for how to accomplish a particular task in a similar way for
others that are trying to accomplish the same thing, while reducing
overhead and inefficiencies. Although there are different types and
configurations of standards, they all enhance competition by allowing
different entities to work from a commonly accepted baseline.
On the first types of standards than can be found are "informal" ones
- agreed-upon normal ways of interacting within a specific community.
For example, the process through which greetings to a new
acquaintance are expressed through a bow, a handshake or a kiss. On
the other hand, "formal" standards are normally codified in writing.
Within economy studies, _de facto_ standards arise in market
situations where one entity is particularly dominant; downstream
competitors are therefore tied to the dominant entity's technological
solutions [Ahlborn]. Under EU anti-trust law, _de facto_ standards
have been found to restrict competition for downstream services in PC
software products [CJEU2007], as well as downstream services
dependent on health information [CJEU2004].
Even in international law, the World Trade Organization (WTO) uses
standards, although it recognizes a difference between standards and
technical regulations. The former are voluntary formal codes to
which products or services may conform, while technical regulations
are mandatory requirements to be fullfilled for a product to be
accessible in a national market. These rules have implications for
how nation states bound by WTO agreements can impose specific
technical requirements on companies. Nonetheless, there are many
standardization groups that were originally launched by nation states
or groups of nation states. ISO, BIS, CNIS, NIST, ABNT and ETSI are
examples of institutions that are, wholly or partially, sponsored by
public money in order to ensure the smooth development of formal
standards. Even if under WTO rules these organizations cannot create
the equivalent of a technical regulation, they have important
normative functions in their respective countries. No matter what
form, all standards enhance competition and collaboration because
ten Oever Expires November 18, 2019 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft politix May 2019
they define a common approach to a problem. This potentially allows
different instances to interoperate or be evaluated according to the
same indicators.
The development of formal standards faces a number of economic and
organizational challenges. Mainly, the cost and difficulty of
organizing many entities around a mutual goal, as well as the cost of
research and development leading up to a mutually beneficial
technological platform. In addition, deciding what the mutual goal
is can also be a problem. These challenges may be described as
inter-organizational costs. Even after a goal is decided upon,
coordination of multiple entities requires time and money. One needs
communication platforms, processes and a commitment to mutual
investment in a higher good. They are not simple tasks, and the more
different communities are affected by a particular standardization
process, the more difficult the organizational challenges become.
5.2. How voluntary are open standards?
Coordinating transnational stakeholders in a process of negotiation
and agreement through the development of common rules is a form of
global governance [Nadvi]. Standards are among the mechanisms by
which this governance is achieved. Conformance to certain standards
is often a basic condition of participation in international trade
and communication, so there are strong economic and political
incentives to conform, even in the absence of legal requirements
[Russell]. [RogersEden] argue:
"As unequal participants compete to define standards, technological
compromises emerge, which add complexity to standards. For instance,
when working group participants propose competing solutions, it may
be easier for them to agree on a standard that combines all the
proposals rather than choosing any single proposal. This shifts the
responsibility for selecting a solution onto those who implement the
standard, which can lead to complex implementations that may not be
interoperable. On its face this appears to be a failure of the
standardization process, but this outcome may benefit certain
participants - for example, by allowing an implementer with large
market share to establish a _de facto_ standard within the scope of
the documented standard."
6. Conclusion
Economics, competition, collaboration, openness, and political impact
have been an inherent part of the work of the IETF since its early
beginnings. The IETF cannot ordain which standards are to be used on
the networks, and it specifically does not determine the laws of
regions or countries where networks are being used, but it does set
ten Oever Expires November 18, 2019 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft politix May 2019
open standards for interoperability on the Internet, and has done so
since the inception of the Internet. Because a standard is the blue-
print for how to accomplish a particular task, the adopted standards
have a normative effect. The standardization work at the IETF has
direct implications on what is perceived as technologically possible
and useful where networking technologies are being deployed, and thus
its standards reflect what is considered by the technical community
as feasible and good practice.
Whereas there might not be agreement among the Internet protocol
community on the specific political nature of the technological
development process and its outputs, it is undisputed that standards
and protocols are both products of a political process, and they can
also be used for political means. Therefore protocols and standards
are not 'value-neutral, and neither is the IETF' [RFC3935]. Thus we
can answer the research question 'are protocols political' in
affirmative fashion.
Further research could explore how the political nature of protocols
can be taken into account in the standards development process in
order to (1) to minimize negative unintended social consequences, (2)
ensure clear understanding of the intended consequences, (3) maintain
importance of the IETF as open standards body that facilitates global
interoperability.
7. Security Considerations
As this draft concerns a research document, there are no security
considerations as described in [RFC3552], which does not mean that
not addressing the issues brought up in this draft will not impact
the security of end-users or operators.
8. IANA Considerations
This document has no actions for IANA.
9. Acknowledgements
Thanks to Michael Rogers, Joe Hall, Andrew Sullivan, Brian Carpenter,
Mark Perkins and all contributors and reviewers on the hrpc
mailinglist. Special thanks to Gisela Perez de Acha for some
thorough editing rounds, and Amelia Andersdotter for significant text
contributions.
ten Oever Expires November 18, 2019 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft politix May 2019
10. Research Group Information
The discussion list for the IRTF Human Rights Protocol Considerations
working group is located at the e-mail address hrpc@ietf.org [1].
Information on the group and information on how to subscribe to the
list is at: https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc [2]
Archives of the list can be found at: https://www.irtf.org/mail-
archive/web/hrpc/current/index.html [3]
11. References
11.1. Informative References
[Abbate] Abbate, J., "Inventing the Internet", MIT Press , 2000,
.
[Ahlborn] Ahlborn, C., Denicolo, V., Geradin, D., and A. Padilla,
"Implications of the Proposed Framework and Antitrust
Rules for Dynamically Competitive Industries", DG Comp's
Discussion Paper on Article 82, DG COMP, European
Commission , 2006,
.
[BijkerLaw]
Bijker, W. and J. Law, "Shaping Technology/ Building
Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change", Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press , 1992.
[Bloor] Bloor, D., "Knowledge and Social Imagery", London:
Routeledge & Kegan Paul , 1976.
[BramanI] Braman, S., "Internationalization of the Internet by
design: The first decade", Global Media and Communication,
Vol 8, Issue 1, pp. 27 - 45 , 2012, .
[BramanII]
Braman, S., "The Framing Years: Policy Fundamentals in the
Internet Design Process, 1969-1979", The Information
Society Vol. 27, Issue 5, 2011 , 2010, .
[Carey] Carey, J., "Communication As Culture", p. 139 , 1992.
ten Oever Expires November 18, 2019 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft politix May 2019
[CJEU2004]
Court of Justice of the European Union, .,
"ECLI:EU:C:2004:257, C-418/01 IMS Health", Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press , 2004,
.
[CJEU2007]
Court of Justice of the European Union, .,
"ECLI:EU:T:2007:289, T-201/04 Microsoft Corp.", Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press , 2007,
.
[Contreras]
Contreras, J., "Technical Standards and Ex Ante
Disclosure: Results and Analysis of an Empirical Study",
Jurimetrics: The Journal of Law, Science & Technology,
vol. 53, p. 163-211 , 2013.
[DeNardis]
Denardis, L., "The Internet Design Tension between
Surveillance and Security", IEEE Annals of the History of
Computing (volume 37-2) , 2015, .
[Feenberg]
Feenberg, A., "Critical Theory of Technology", p.5-6 ,
1991.
[HagueHarrop]
Hague, R. and M. Harrop, "Comparative Government and
Politics: An Introduction", Macmillan International Higher
Education. pp. 1-. ISBN 978-1-137-31786-5. , 2013.
[Heidegger]
Heidegger, M., "The Question Concerning Technology and
Other Essays", Garland: New York, 1977 , 1977,
.
[Nadvi] Nadvi, K. and F. Waeltring, "Making sense of global
standards", In: H. Schmitz (Ed.), Local enterprises in the
global economy (pp. 53-94). Cheltenham, UK: Edward
Elgar. , 2004.
[Postman] Postman, N., "Technopoly: the Surrender of Culture to
Technology", Vintage: New York. pp. 3-20. , 1992.
ten Oever Expires November 18, 2019 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft politix May 2019
[RFC0049] Meyer, E., "Conversations with S. Crocker (UCLA)", RFC 49,
DOI 10.17487/RFC0049, April 1970,
.
[RFC0101] Watson, R., "Notes on the Network Working Group meeting,
Urbana, Illinois, February 17, 1971", RFC 101,
DOI 10.17487/RFC0101, February 1971,
.
[RFC0144] Shoshani, A., "Data sharing on computer networks",
RFC 144, DOI 10.17487/RFC0144, April 1971,
.
[RFC0164] Heafner, J., "Minutes of Network Working Group meeting,
5/16 through 5/19/71", RFC 164, DOI 10.17487/RFC0164, May
1971, .
[RFC0196] Watson, R., "Mail Box Protocol", RFC 196,
DOI 10.17487/RFC0196, July 1971,
.
[RFC0286] Forman, E., "Network Library Information System", RFC 286,
DOI 10.17487/RFC0286, December 1971,
.
[RFC0313] O'Sullivan, T., "Computer based instruction", RFC 313,
DOI 10.17487/RFC0313, March 1972,
.
[RFC0316] McKay, D. and A. Mullery, "ARPA Network Data Management
Working Group", RFC 316, DOI 10.17487/RFC0316, February
1972, .
[RFC0542] Neigus, N., "File Transfer Protocol", RFC 542,
DOI 10.17487/RFC0542, August 1973,
.
[RFC0549] Michener, J., "Minutes of Network Graphics Group meeting,
15-17 July 1973", RFC 549, DOI 10.17487/RFC0549, July
1973, .
[RFC0613] McKenzie, A., "Network connectivity: A response to RFC
603", RFC 613, DOI 10.17487/RFC0613, January 1974,
.
[RFC1097] Miller, B., "Telnet subliminal-message option", RFC 1097,
DOI 10.17487/RFC1097, April 1989,
.
ten Oever Expires November 18, 2019 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft politix May 2019
[RFC2804] IAB and IESG, "IETF Policy on Wiretapping", RFC 2804,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2804, May 2000,
.
[RFC3552] Rescorla, E. and B. Korver, "Guidelines for Writing RFC
Text on Security Considerations", BCP 72, RFC 3552,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3552, July 2003,
.
[RFC3935] Alvestrand, H., "A Mission Statement for the IETF",
BCP 95, RFC 3935, DOI 10.17487/RFC3935, October 2004,
.
[RFC5218] Thaler, D. and B. Aboba, "What Makes for a Successful
Protocol?", RFC 5218, DOI 10.17487/RFC5218, July 2008,
.
[RFC6973] Cooper, A., Tschofenig, H., Aboba, B., Peterson, J.,
Morris, J., Hansen, M., and R. Smith, "Privacy
Considerations for Internet Protocols", RFC 6973,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6973, July 2013,
.
[RFC8280] ten Oever, N. and C. Cath, "Research into Human Rights
Protocol Considerations", RFC 8280, DOI 10.17487/RFC8280,
October 2017, .
[RogersEden]
Rogers, M. and G. Eden, "The Snowden Disclosures,
Technical Standards, and the Making of Surveillance
Infrastructures", International Journal of Communication
11(2017), 802-823 , 2017,
.
[Russell] Russell, A., "Open standards and the digital age: History,
ideology, and networks", Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press , 2014.
[Winner] Winner, L., "Upon opening the black box and finding it
empty: Social constructivism and the philosophy of
technology", Science, Technology, and Human Values 18 (3)
p. 362-378 , 1993.
11.2. URIs
[1] mailto:hrpc@ietf.org
[2] https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc
ten Oever Expires November 18, 2019 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft politix May 2019
[3] https://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/hrpc/current/index.html
Author's Address
Niels ten Oever
University of Amsterdam
EMail: mail@nielstenoever.net
ten Oever Expires November 18, 2019 [Page 15]